1 MAR, 2004 - 1710 CST Hello Dave Sumner... The grass roots lobbying package is a good start - as far as it goes - in the upcoming struggle. But I think we are failing to respond to two claims made by Chairman Powell and the other four commissioners. In their cheer-leading statements they claim that BPL will provide a LOW COST alternative to satellite, DSL, and CATV Internet connections. And they have the unmitigated gall to claim that Homeland Defense will be enhanced by BPL. The technical issues raised in the FCC's NOI indicate that an extensive signal injection system will have to be built. If I correctly understand the data provided so far, a BPL signal rapidly decreases as it propagates along a an open line - a power line in this case. And this attenuation has to be compensated for by re-injecting the RF signal about every 7000 ft. using a coaxial distribution system very similar to a CATV system. It's not rocket science to figure out the total BPL system installation and maintenance cost will not be less that the systems already in use. And when the BPL RF notching and bookkeeping requirements are added to this mix, the cost would be higher. Therefore, the economic claims made by the FCC are bogus. So why should licensed RF users by saddled with this potentially gargantuan interference problem. The commission also claims in its NPRM that Homeland Security will be enhanced. I say Homeland Security will be severely degraded if BPL is allowed to heavily pollute the RF spectrum. Both of these issues should be included in our talking points. 73 - Dick, W9GIG